This is such a bad idea the lions are sure to do it. It excites the fans it imagine the matchup nightmares that the wr corps would create. It's stupid to draft a wr at 2. Even dumber to give up multiple picks in the deepest draft in memory to do so.

Can anyone name for me the 'can't miss WR' drafted in the top 6 picks say who has carried his team to a Super Bowl title?

Crickets??

You can't build your team around wideouts. They are ancillary players. If you give up 3 picks to get this guy you torpedo your depth going forward and you don't get LBs OGs and the other foundational players that make up the core of your team.

If you want to go up to get Clowney, I can relate. For a WR no way.

If Patrick Peterson was there, ok again. Not like that this year.

There is another Titus Young out there who will not flake out. Find him later and you are all set.

You can't name any player other than QB that has carried their team to a Super Bowl and I'd even argue that too. No LB or DE carried their team to a Super Bowl either. It's a team game that requires a balance of talent and role players across all positions. Even if the Lions give up a few picks to get Watkins they can later trade back into round 2 or 3 using picks for next year which is supposed to be incredibly thin. The Lions aren't building for the future with this draft, they aren't looking for prospects they want as close to sure thing impact guys right now and there is only 5 of them in the draft. Watkins happens to be one of them and he also fills a need for them on the team. The Lions also brought in Mack and Clowney, so it seems like they are aimed to trade up for one of the elite guys if possible, not just Watkins.

I agree with this.

April 20th, 2014, 2:08 pm

m2karateman

RIP Killer

Joined: October 20th, 2004, 4:16 pmPosts: 10408Location: Where ever I'm at now

Re: Watkins scenario Pros/Cons

rao wrote:

jrd66 wrote:

This is such a bad idea the lions are sure to do it. It excites the fans it imagine the matchup nightmares that the wr corps would create. It's stupid to draft a wr at 2. Even dumber to give up multiple picks in the deepest draft in memory to do so.

Can anyone name for me the 'can't miss WR' drafted in the top 6 picks say who has carried his team to a Super Bowl title?

Crickets??

You can't build your team around wideouts. They are ancillary players. If you give up 3 picks to get this guy you torpedo your depth going forward and you don't get LBs OGs and the other foundational players that make up the core of your team.

If you want to go up to get Clowney, I can relate. For a WR no way.

If Patrick Peterson was there, ok again. Not like that this year.

There is another Titus Young out there who will not flake out. Find him later and you are all set.

You can't name any player other than QB that has carried their team to a Super Bowl and I'd even argue that too. No LB or DE carried their team to a Super Bowl either. It's a team game that requires a balance of talent and role players across all positions. Even if the Lions give up a few picks to get Watkins they can later trade back into round 2 or 3 using picks for next year which is supposed to be incredibly thin. The Lions aren't building for the future with this draft, they aren't looking for prospects they want as close to sure thing impact guys right now and there is only 5 of them in the draft. Watkins happens to be one of them and he also fills a need for them on the team. The Lions also brought in Mack and Clowney, so it seems like they are aimed to trade up for one of the elite guys if possible, not just Watkins.

No single player carries a team. Rao is absolutely correct on that. If that were the case, the Colts and the Broncos would have multiple titles in the last few years under Peyton Manning.

I haven't chimed in on this thread, so here's my take. If the Lions were to move up to get Watkins, who in my mind is the closest player to a sure thing in this draft, I won't be terribly upset. Like it or not, believe it or not, WR is a position of NEED on this team. Calvin is having all sorts of health issues, and we don't have any player even CLOSE to being his successor. We don't even truly have a #2 wideout on this team. Golden Tate? Give me a break. He's too inconsistent as a receiver to be that reliable. And reliability is what you want out of that second receiver spot.

To move up and get Watkins at #2 in a trade with the Rams, the Lions shouldn't have to give up any more than their second round pick this year. To get that level of talent, I'd be OK with that. I'd rather see them move up to get Watkins there, even if Clowney is still on the board. Clowney has more potential, but Watkins is a player that I feel would start NOW, and be an immediate impact. If the Lions decide to stand pat, or move down, OK. If they can get the gaps filled and add talent to the roster like they did last year, then I've got no problems with that either.

I know they say next years draft will be thin. But isn't that what is being said every year at this time? There are always juniors and red shirt sophomores that blossom and decide to enter the draft. That is what makes this draft so strong and deep, the juniors and RS sophs that have declared.

Understand that I don't feel this team needs just one player. They already have the one player on their roster that can get them to the next level. He just needs to get his sh*t together and start making the plays he's capable of. If that happens, this team will be incredible to watch and harder to stop.

_________________I will not put on blinders when it comes to our QBs performances.

M2K beat me to it. Next years draft will be thin. UNLESS, another 200 underclassmen declare next year. I'm actually more worried that there won't be enough seniors to hold the Senior Bowl at some point.

April 20th, 2014, 5:27 pm

jrd66

Mr. Irrelevant

Joined: February 10th, 2005, 6:52 pmPosts: 937Location: Linden, MI

Re: Watkins scenario Pros/Cons

This link is to an article with a list of top 10 picks at receiver going back a ways. I didn't vet it for toal accuracy but I'm going to trust the list in there. The point is that none of these guys has won a Super Bowl. Why would you trade your 2nd rd pick for the right to draft a wr? If he gets 70 touches it would be a miracle. 45 catches would be more realistic.

Joined: October 20th, 2004, 4:16 pmPosts: 10408Location: Where ever I'm at now

Re: Watkins scenario Pros/Cons

jrd66 wrote:

This link is to an article with a list of top 10 picks at receiver going back a ways. I didn't vet it for toal accuracy but I'm going to trust the list in there. The point is that none of these guys has won a Super Bowl. Why would you trade your 2nd rd pick for the right to draft a wr? If he gets 70 touches it would be a miracle. 45 catches would be more realistic.

Since when do WRs win Superbowls? You don't blame the player, blame the team. If you plan your draft based on garbage stats like this (and I'm sorry, but stuff like that is just pure garbage), then the Lions wouldn't be taking any player at the tenth pick. I could just as easily show how a player selected 10th, at any position, has failed to do much or have traditionally become busts. Why? Because in most drafts, at least two thirds of the players selected have mediocre careers, or worse.

So, tell me jrd, what player likely to be available at the 10th pick is going to make an IMMEDIATE impact for this team? I got your answer....NONE. While this draft may have depth based on the level of talent available through rounds three or four, the number of prospects considered to be 'elite' by most draft gurus is limited to three or four players. None of the QBs qualify. Clowney, Watkins, Mack....and MAYBE Greg Robinson. That's it.

In 2011 the Lions tried to trade up from the 13th to the 5th pick to get Patrick Peterson. They offered their 2nd and 4th rounders as compensation. Rumors are that Arizona demanded the Lions first round pick in 2012, which ended up being the 23rd overall. With those picks, the Lions got Nick Fairley, Titus Young, Riley Reiff. They traded their fourth rounder in 2011 to move up into the second round to get Mikel LeShoure. With that fourth round pick, the Seahawks took Kris Durham. So, the Lions end up with Fairley, Young, Durham and Reiff. I agreed with the Lions backing off the deal when Arizona wanted that extra 2012 first round pick. However, had the Lions been able to make the deal with those original three picks, I think Fairley, Young and Durham in exchange for Peterson is a move most Lions fans would take in a heart beat today.

I understand that hindsight is 20/20 and one could easily say that I wouldn't be saying any of this if Peterson was a bust. Point is, he isn't. He was rated very high for a reason. He was considered an 'elite' prospect. Most players who get that tag in the modern era of the draft usually go on to have pretty solid, if not spectacular, careers. That is, provided, Matt Millen isn't running that particular teams draft.

_________________I will not put on blinders when it comes to our QBs performances.

This link is to an article with a list of top 10 picks at receiver going back a ways. I didn't vet it for toal accuracy but I'm going to trust the list in there. The point is that none of these guys has won a Super Bowl. Why would you trade your 2nd rd pick for the right to draft a wr? If he gets 70 touches it would be a miracle. 45 catches would be more realistic.

Most of those WRs were just flat out bad picks and had nothing to do with them being WRs. Fitzgerald, Andre Johnson and A.J. Green have contributed to some of the best seasons those teams have ever had. The fact that those teams haven't won a Super Bowl has nothing to do with them spending high resources on a WR and everything to do with the failures the front offices of those teams had trying to address their deficiencies. Even Michael Crabtree was an integral part of the 49ers recent success and they have all the depth in the world but still couldn't win a Super Bowl.

April 20th, 2014, 11:18 pm

jrd66

Mr. Irrelevant

Joined: February 10th, 2005, 6:52 pmPosts: 937Location: Linden, MI

Re: Watkins scenario Pros/Cons

m2karateman wrote:

jrd66 wrote:

This link is to an article with a list of top 10 picks at receiver going back a ways. I didn't vet it for toal accuracy but I'm going to trust the list in there. The point is that none of these guys has won a Super Bowl. Why would you trade your 2nd rd pick for the right to draft a wr? If he gets 70 touches it would be a miracle. 45 catches would be more realistic.

Since when do WRs win Superbowls? You don't blame the player, blame the team. If you plan your draft based on garbage stats like this (and I'm sorry, but stuff like that is just pure garbage), then the Lions wouldn't be taking any player at the tenth pick. I could just as easily show how a player selected 10th, at any position, has failed to do much or have traditionally become busts. Why? Because in most drafts, at least two thirds of the players selected have mediocre careers, or worse.

So, tell me jrd, what player likely to be available at the 10th pick is going to make an IMMEDIATE impact for this team? I got your answer....NONE. While this draft may have depth based on the level of talent available through rounds three or four, the number of prospects considered to be 'elite' by most draft gurus is limited to three or four players. None of the QBs qualify. Clowney, Watkins, Mack....and MAYBE Greg Robinson. That's it.

In 2011 the Lions tried to trade up from the 13th to the 5th pick to get Patrick Peterson. They offered their 2nd and 4th rounders as compensation. Rumors are that Arizona demanded the Lions first round pick in 2012, which ended up being the 23rd overall. With those picks, the Lions got Nick Fairley, Titus Young, Riley Reiff. They traded their fourth rounder in 2011 to move up into the second round to get Mikel LeShoure. With that fourth round pick, the Seahawks took Kris Durham. So, the Lions end up with Fairley, Young, Durham and Reiff. I agreed with the Lions backing off the deal when Arizona wanted that extra 2012 first round pick. However, had the Lions been able to make the deal with those original three picks, I think Fairley, Young and Durham in exchange for Peterson is a move most Lions fans would take in a heart beat today.

I understand that hindsight is 20/20 and one could easily say that I wouldn't be saying any of this if Peterson was a bust. Point is, he isn't. He was rated very high for a reason. He was considered an 'elite' prospect. Most players who get that tag in the modern era of the draft usually go on to have pretty solid, if not spectacular, careers. That is, provided, Matt Millen isn't running that particular teams draft.

WR don't win Super Bowls. That's the entire point whether you think it's garbage or not. I think those picks are better spent elsewhere. Say a top safety or lb.

But that's me. If you guys want to repeat this endless cycle of millen that's your choice.

_________________OK. Schwartz is fired, the fans are happy, now what?

April 20th, 2014, 11:50 pm

kdsberman

League MVP

Joined: February 20th, 2007, 10:51 pmPosts: 3527Location: Saginaw, MI

Re: Watkins scenario Pros/Cons

jrd66 wrote:

m2karateman wrote:

jrd66 wrote:

This link is to an article with a list of top 10 picks at receiver going back a ways. I didn't vet it for toal accuracy but I'm going to trust the list in there. The point is that none of these guys has won a Super Bowl. Why would you trade your 2nd rd pick for the right to draft a wr? If he gets 70 touches it would be a miracle. 45 catches would be more realistic.

Since when do WRs win Superbowls? You don't blame the player, blame the team. If you plan your draft based on garbage stats like this (and I'm sorry, but stuff like that is just pure garbage), then the Lions wouldn't be taking any player at the tenth pick. I could just as easily show how a player selected 10th, at any position, has failed to do much or have traditionally become busts. Why? Because in most drafts, at least two thirds of the players selected have mediocre careers, or worse.

So, tell me jrd, what player likely to be available at the 10th pick is going to make an IMMEDIATE impact for this team? I got your answer....NONE. While this draft may have depth based on the level of talent available through rounds three or four, the number of prospects considered to be 'elite' by most draft gurus is limited to three or four players. None of the QBs qualify. Clowney, Watkins, Mack....and MAYBE Greg Robinson. That's it.

In 2011 the Lions tried to trade up from the 13th to the 5th pick to get Patrick Peterson. They offered their 2nd and 4th rounders as compensation. Rumors are that Arizona demanded the Lions first round pick in 2012, which ended up being the 23rd overall. With those picks, the Lions got Nick Fairley, Titus Young, Riley Reiff. They traded their fourth rounder in 2011 to move up into the second round to get Mikel LeShoure. With that fourth round pick, the Seahawks took Kris Durham. So, the Lions end up with Fairley, Young, Durham and Reiff. I agreed with the Lions backing off the deal when Arizona wanted that extra 2012 first round pick. However, had the Lions been able to make the deal with those original three picks, I think Fairley, Young and Durham in exchange for Peterson is a move most Lions fans would take in a heart beat today.

I understand that hindsight is 20/20 and one could easily say that I wouldn't be saying any of this if Peterson was a bust. Point is, he isn't. He was rated very high for a reason. He was considered an 'elite' prospect. Most players who get that tag in the modern era of the draft usually go on to have pretty solid, if not spectacular, careers. That is, provided, Matt Millen isn't running that particular teams draft.

WR don't win Super Bowls. That's the entire point whether you think it's garbage or not. I think those picks are better spent elsewhere. Say a top safety or lb.

But that's me. If you guys want to repeat this endless cycle of millen that's your choice.

You cant compare what Millen did to what we do now. The whole organization was a mess. We could have picked the "right" guy each year Millen was here and the team probably still would have sucked.

We'll nothing so far is written to convince me that trading up for Watkins or another WR is sound. Maybe if you go up a spot or two and give up something cheap like a 4 I could be swayed. Otherwise not for me.

But as I've said previously. I am a heretic. I admit it and embrace it. It's ok. The lions don't let me in the draft meetings anyway so my vote won't count.

I am curious though, as M2K says Tate is no good or inconsistent. Why do you think that? If he can't man the 2 role, why sign him? What is it that he doesn't do?

_________________OK. Schwartz is fired, the fans are happy, now what?

April 21st, 2014, 3:41 pm

njroar

QB Coach - Brian Callahan

Joined: September 25th, 2007, 3:20 amPosts: 3233

Re: Watkins scenario Pros/Cons

It's not the Tate isn't a good #2. It's that if CJ goes down, he's not going to be a #1. That's where you still need a receiver that can step up to #1 when needed. I think most fail to remember that when CJ was drafted, he was the #2 behind Roy. He then took over the role when we traded Roy, but not before. Tate was a good pickup for the offense, but in no way would he be a #1 if needed.

And you can disagree that trading up for any player is a bad deal, but that doesn't make it the end of the conversation. There are elite players in each draft and there are good players. IF you want to sit back and settle for good, then by all means, no one will be upset with you. But you can't be upset that the team is thinking about going for an elite player if the price is right.

The only problem I see with you being happy at sitting tight is wanting a safety or LB. Except for Mack, there are no LB's worth #10. Barr is going to be a DE, not a LB. He's a pass rusher only, so DE in a 4-3, or rushing LB for 3-4. Even if we run a hybrid system,you don't draft someone in the top 10 to be a part-time player. And the safeties aren't worth #10 either, so would you rather have us trade up for an elite player, or do you want to sit tight and reach? Both end up costing us, but with the trade up, at least the player will be of value.

It's not the Tate isn't a good #2. It's that if CJ goes down, he's not going to be a #1. That's where you still need a receiver that can step up to #1 when needed. I think most fail to remember that when CJ was drafted, he was the #2 behind Roy. He then took over the role when we traded Roy, but not before. Tate was a good pickup for the offense, but in no way would he be a #1 if needed.

And you can disagree that trading up for any player is a bad deal, but that doesn't make it the end of the conversation. There are elite players in each draft and there are good players. IF you want to sit back and settle for good, then by all means, no one will be upset with you. But you can't be upset that the team is thinking about going for an elite player if the price is right.

The only problem I see with you being happy at sitting tight is wanting a safety or LB. Except for Mack, there are no LB's worth #10. Barr is going to be a DE, not a LB. He's a pass rusher only, so DE in a 4-3, or rushing LB for 3-4. Even if we run a hybrid system,you don't draft someone in the top 10 to be a part-time player. And the safeties aren't worth #10 either, so would you rather have us trade up for an elite player, or do you want to sit tight and reach? Both end up costing us, but with the trade up, at least the player will be of value.

I want to add to this that before someone starts barking trade down to remember that there has to be a player someone wants to trade up for to trade down. If they stay at ten just to try to trade down and can't find a partner they could get stuck with a player they never really wanted.

April 21st, 2014, 6:26 pm

m2karateman

RIP Killer

Joined: October 20th, 2004, 4:16 pmPosts: 10408Location: Where ever I'm at now

Re: Watkins scenario Pros/Cons

jrd66 wrote:

We'll nothing so far is written to convince me that trading up for Watkins or another WR is sound. Maybe if you go up a spot or two and give up something cheap like a 4 I could be swayed. Otherwise not for me.

But as I've said previously. I am a heretic. I admit it and embrace it. It's ok. The lions don't let me in the draft meetings anyway so my vote won't count.

I am curious though, as M2K says Tate is no good or inconsistent. Why do you think that? If he can't man the 2 role, why sign him? What is it that he doesn't do?

I didn't say he's no good. I said he's not really consistent enough to be a true #2 receiver. At least, that's how I see him. Burleson was the same way. Tate is just a younger version of Nate, in my book. Both are more suited to be slot receivers with the physical makeup and inconsistent hands. Tate isn't a great route runner or a possession style receiver. He's got pretty decent speed, and good enough physical presence to be able to block out smaller CBs. However, he doesn't always make the catch when he should and he isn't speedy enough to outrun CBs down the side lines.

To me, a #2 receiver should be a either a speedy wideout designed to draw a safety deep, or a big, physical possession receiver that forces a safety to cheat inside to take away the slants, hooks and dig routes and help the CB bring the receiver down after the catch. One way or another, the #2 WR should create matchup problems for outside corners, not nickel corners. Also, as njroar said, the #2 receiver should be good enough that if your top receiver is out, the oppositions number one corner won't have a field day with him and basically nullify his presence.

Watkins has enough size, speed and skill to be a number one receiver in the NFL. All he needs now is some experience and if he has the heart to be that good he will be barring injuries. You can bash the previous Lions WR picks like Charles Rogers, Mike Williams, Roy Williams, Titus Young, etc. all you want. Most folks knew those were sketchy picks when they were made. I harped about Andre Johnson being the better receiver than Charles Rogers BEFORE the draft that year. I was poo-pooed by most people because around here there is a natural tendency to think anyone coming out of U of M or MSU is going to be a great NFL player. There were all sorts of red flags on all those guys. Roy Williams? He was OK for a couple years, but there was always a question of his work ethic. Mike Williams? Plenty of talent, but unfortunately we had a douchebag coach who was more concerned with his weight than his playing ability. There were also red flags about BMW and his desire to play versus his desire to make money. Titus? I think we all know about that. And we can even talk Ryan Broyles and the injury issues everyone knew about.

You can't pan taking a WR in the first round because it hasn't worked out well for us in the recent past. Because, the fact is it HAS worked out at other times, both for the Lions and the rest of the league. CJ right a bell? Herman Moore? Johnnie Morton? All good picks in the first round at that position for the Lions.

And keep in mind that as much as you feel giving up a second rounder to secure Watkins is too much, would you feel that way if the Lions had that chance, passed and picked up someone else who becomes a dud, and also take someone in the second round who stinks as well, all while Watkins becomes a solid to spectacular NFL player? It's not like the Lions second round picks have become superstars. The jury is still out on Slay. But Broyles, Young, LeShoure, Delmas, Dizon, Stanton, Alama-Francis, Gerald Alexander, Daniel Bullocks, Shaun Cody, and Ted Lehman.....all our second round selections since 2004...basically the last 10 drafts. Out of ALL those, only Delmas has made decent contributions to the Lions. The rest were panty waste in their time here, or never amounted to anything.

So, I don't see that giving up a second round pick to secure a player with elite potential is giving up all that much.

But I'm not going to sit here and say that I am right and you or anybody else are wrong. I've been wrong about picks, I've been right about picks. An NFL GM is going to be the same way. The only difference is their job depends on it, and they have a bunch more information at their disposal to make those picks. If the Lions choose not to chase after Watkins, that's fine. I can understand wanting to hold onto high picks when you have other needs. But the fall off between Watkins and other players that will be available at the 10th pick is substantial, at least to me. My personal draft board shows Watkins as the top player available, even above Clowney or Mack. I have Mack second and Clowney third. Clowney has the highest ceiling, but I see too much possibility of his failing to be an impact player due to his mindset. I could be wrong, but it's my opinion.

_________________I will not put on blinders when it comes to our QBs performances.

I am curious though, as M2K says Tate is no good or inconsistent. Why do you think that? If he can't man the 2 role, why sign him? What is it that he doesn't do?

I didn't say he's no good. I said he's not really consistent enough to be a true #2 receiver. At least, that's how I see him. Burleson was the same way. Tate is just a younger version of Nate, in my book. Both are more suited to be slot receivers with the physical makeup and inconsistent hands. Tate isn't a great route runner or a possession style receiver. He's got pretty decent speed, and good enough physical presence to be able to block out smaller CBs. However, he doesn't always make the catch when he should and he isn't speedy enough to outrun CBs down the side lines.

Tate does not have inconsistent hands. He's got the best catch rate of any receiver since 2011. He is very sticky handed and was regarded as a good route runner coming out of college. He doesn't have explosive acceleration or elite top end speed and is lacking in height. Those are his only problems. I agree that he isn't a great #2 and won't be able to handle things without CJ, but I think your a little off on your assessment of Tate.

April 22nd, 2014, 2:33 pm

Pablo

RIP Killer

Joined: August 6th, 2004, 9:21 amPosts: 9985Location: Dallas

Re: Watkins scenario Pros/Cons

I have to agree to some degree with both of you. IMO, like Rao, Tate has very good hands. He looks to run nice routes to me, is fairly smooth and is solid after the catch. What I don't see is a sudden burst and that can be tricky for a shorter receiver. He does have decent, but not great top end speed.

I do agree with M2K in that I'm not sure he is a great fit for the WR2 however. He's not very big, nor overly fast - I'd like one of those traits in a #2. I'd rather see him as being our #3 at this point, but that is going to cost us a high draft pick to make happen.